As Neate mentioned this morning, the Arena Football League finally got around to suspending their 2009 season [AFL press release] late last night. Sounds like someone finally whacked it to stop the protests. For those keeping track, this came five days after Los Angeles Avengers owner Casey Wasserman told Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times last Wednesday that the owners were going to call the season off, prompting this analysis post from myself. That night, though, the league's owners voted to keep going for a season. Apparently, the owners held another conference call Sunday night and voted [The Associated Press, via Yahoo!] to shut the season down then.
You have to wonder what changed in those four days. It's hard to think that it was that much. The economic mess didn't change drastically, and there wasn't a lot of news on the football front in other leagues that would have made a difference. It also doesn't seem to have been changes on the player relations front, as this move is apparently still subject to union approval [AP, via The Globe and Mail. What seems more likely is that Wednesday's move was a snap decision not necessarily to keep the league up and running but to further explore the possibililty of playing in 2009. That's logical; as I previously wrote, taking a season off makes it tougher to come back, especially in this economic climate. Thus, it's understandable that they wanted to preserve the possibility of playing for as long as possible (in fact, the Globe story says there's still a chance of an abbreviated 2009 season; that doesn't seem too likely though, as most of the players are probably going to look for work elsewhere).
This still doesn't look good on the AFL, though. Essentially, the same group of people voted twice on the subject within four days. The first vote was unanimously in favour of not suspending play; the second one doesn't seem to have been unanimous, but a majority of owners voted in favour of suspending play. This leaves an appearance of amateurism, and it certainly leads to poor perception in the media; you can bet that the LA Times, Yahoo! and the vast number of other news outlets that ran with the original cancellation story only to pull it when the league's denial came out aren't too happy about this reversal because it makes them look bad. Editors from coast-to-coast are probably cursing the league, and those memories will have an impact on coverage if and when the league resumes play.
The implications are interesting. In the short term,, we'll likely see an influx of talent to the CFL. The scope of that influx is up for debate, but there will certainly be a lot of football players looking for a job this year, and CFL executives like Jim Popp have commented publicly that there are Arena Football players who would be very interesting to CFL teams.
We might also see more broadcasts of CFL games in the U.S. The AFL was broadcast on ESPN2 [ESPN.com] every Monday, and the CFL has a pre-existing deal with ESPN to have some of their games regularly webcast on ESPN 360. There will be Americans looking for football to watch in May and June, and it could be a logical move for ESPN to show some CFL games in the old AFL slot on ESPN2.
In the long term, we'll likely see either the AFL return or another new league like the USFL take its place. There's too much interest in football in the U.S. for there not to be another pro league of some kind, especially if it's focused on spring games. The AFL also has a lot of big names and big money backing it. It will be tough either for the AFL to come back or a new league to start in the current economic state of affairs, though, as they would be very much an alternative, fringe league. The big leagues in the U.S. are struggling to some degree, as shown by the recent job cuts, but it's been shown before by various economists that there's still a considerable demand for sports during a recession. However, that demand is usually more for mainstream sports, which makes sense. People have to prioritize their spending, and it's easier to rationalize giving something else up to buy tickets for an event if you're a passionate fan of the team or the league involved. Thus, these tickets are sometimes regarded as more essential. For leagues such as the AFL, the NHL and even MLS, though, a good deal of their fans don't necessarily put that sport first, and thus they may find it hard to justify spending the cash for tickets to those games.
Some quotes from the AFL press release to wrap things up:
- Jon Bon Jovi, co-owner of the defending champion Philadelphia Soul:
"We, the owners of the Arena Football League, realize we have the most fan-friendly, affordable and accessible sport anywhere. These are trying economic times. The revamping will ensure that the AFL continues to provide value to its fans and not only survives but thrives in the years to come."
- Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Desperados (and some other Dallas team):
"Our involvement with the Arena Football League was always geared toward promoting football on a year-round basis. Our experience with the Desperados has accomplished those goals and has been very positive. As we move forward we will explore all of the options that are available in regard to the future of the AFL and the Desperados."
- Arthur Blank, owner of the Georgia Force (and the Atlanta Falcons):
"As a four-year owner of the Georgia Force, I have enjoyed our affiliation with Arena Football. In addition, our club is very proud of its leadership position in the league in many areas on and off the field. We want that to continue for our fans, so we support the decision to focus our energies on securing the long-term success of the Arena Football League."
- John Elway, co-owner and CEO of the Colorado Crush:
"Although it is disappointing to suspend the 2009 season, the Arena Football League and its owners feel it is essential to reevaluate the current business model to ensure the livelihood of the AFL in the future."
That's what the league should have done to survive: put out more releases with comments from those kind of names!
Showing posts with label AFL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFL. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
McCown, Brunt and Mitchell on the AFL's potential demise
Bob McCown and Stephen Brunt discussed the AFL's potential collapse and its implications for the CFL on their radio/TV show Prime Time Sports this afternoon with Hamilton Tiger-Cats president Scott Mitchell, and there were plenty of interesting points made. Several of them were in line with my speculation yesterday, but there were some unexpected questions and responses as well. The audio file of the interview can be found here on the Fan 590 home page. Some of their key comments are after the jump, along with my analysis.
In the opening segment, McCown and Brunt discussed the AFL for a while, and both seemed to come to the conclusion that its demise would probably help the CFL in some way. As McCown said, "The presumption is that it probably would be a good thing for the CFL". Mitchell disagreed, though, arguing that if the AFL cancelled its season, the impact would probably be "negligible." He thought that the relatively small crossover rate between the two leagues meant that most AFL guys weren't cut out for the CFL and vice versa. "It’s a different skill set, a different type of player," he said. "Even without that league there, I’m not sure you’re going to see a large migration of players up here."
I don't buy that argument, though. Yes, the game is a bit different, but there are certainly those who could play in either league. As Montreal Alouettes general manager Jim Popp told The Globe and Mail's David Naylor yesterday, there are probably three to five players on each team who would attract some CFL interest, representing 51 to 85 players total by my calculations. Popp is also actively involved the football operations side, while Mitchell primarily oversees the business end, so I trust Popp's evaluation more here. There's also some good talent in the league: check out this list of some notable arena football alumni who have made it to the NFL.
Furthermore, the historical lack of players transferring between the two leagues does not mean that situation would hold if one league collapsed. The salaries are quite similar for many players, so the AFL was a chance for Americans who couldn't crack the NFL to stay in the U.S. and still play football. If it goes under, there's much more incentive for them to come to the CFL (and less alternative options as well). Thus, you'd probably see more Americans willing to come north. As McCown said, "If that option is removed, now where do these guys go?" His conclusion was that a bunch of them would come to Canada, and that seems plausible from here.
The next subject of discussion was Arena League quarterbacks in particular, as the league's known for its quarterback play (the Arizona Cardinals' Kurt Warner got his start in the AFL). Mitchell admitted that quarterback is "one area that could be interesting," but then dumped a little cold water on it by suggesting that "it’s a very quick pass league and arm strength isn’t the prerequisite for the quarterback." Well, arm strength is great, but many NFL and CFL teams have proved that it isn't always necessary; just ask Bill Walsh, Jon Gruden and Chad Pennington. Reading the defence and making good decisions can be just as important.
Another interesting point that was brought up was the idea of suspension versus completely dissolving the league. Mitchell seemed to think that a one-year suspension wouldn't kill the league, but Brunt made an excellent point to the contrary along my own lines of thought. "It seems to me that if something goes away right now, the notion of trying to bring it back 12 months from now in what's probably going to be a worse economy is a non-starter," he said. Personally, I don't see how the AFL could expect to come back after sitting out a year; you'd lose all of your players and contracts, and not all of them would come running back if they found a better situation. You also lose your TV deals, your corporate sponsorship and a good deal of your fan base. It would likely be extremely difficult to revive the league after a year-long suspension.
Brunt also raised the issue of the AFL folding potentially strengthening the CFL's negotiating position vis-a-vis the NFL, as the NFL would still need to develop their players somewhere and investing in the CFL might make more sense than trying to start their own league again. As he said, "The NFL is loathe to put money into developing leagues in general." Mitchell downplayed this idea as well, though, saying, "The European league, that going out of business was probably more advantageous for us than the Arena League [going out of business]."
Next, they discussed how the absence of the Arena League would make CFL scouting more difficult. McCown said "The downside to this is that it makes it more difficult to find those guys who kind of fall off the radar," and there was pretty much consensus on that point. It makes sense from here, too, and means that the CFL would probably have to focus more of their efforts on nabbing potential players when they come out of college. From here, though, that's a pretty small drawback compared to the gains that could be in store in other areas.
Also interesting was their discussion of the idea of a new American league arising, such as the "New USFL". I'd heard rumours about this before, but hadn't really considered what the AFL's demise could mean. It certainly could pave the way for a new American league, though, as the AFL's existence (and that of the old USFL) has shown that there's an appetite for more pro football in the States, especially in the spring. That kind of a league might be problematic for the CFL, especially if they go with a relatively high salary cap and draw CFL players away. As Mitchell said, "If there was a league that came out and was operating at a 30 million dollar cap, that would be the one that’s going to affect us and concern us the most." I'm not sure that any of these leagues will ever get off the ground, though; it's awfully hard to try and launch a new professional sports entity during an economic recession.
The last point raised was a discussion of if the absence of the AFL would allow the CFL to reduce player salaries due to a lack of competition. As Brunt asked, "If you’re the only game in town other than the NFL, shouldn’t that allow you to operate at a less expensive level?" Mitchell replied that the current bargaining agreement locks the players' cut in at 65 per cent of revenues, so that wouldn't change for the moment. However, the lack of an alternative might help the owners' bargaining position in the next negotiations.
Overall, it was a very interesting segment. McCown and Brunt have obviously put some thought into this, and most of their conclusions seem logical. Mitchell seemed reticent to read too much into this, but a good part of that may be his position. It would be bad form for a top executive to gloat publicly about the demise of a competitor, especially when the competitor isn't quite dead yet [Duane Rollins, this blog]. Thus, the impact on the CFL might be more profound than he's willing to admit at this juncture.
In the opening segment, McCown and Brunt discussed the AFL for a while, and both seemed to come to the conclusion that its demise would probably help the CFL in some way. As McCown said, "The presumption is that it probably would be a good thing for the CFL". Mitchell disagreed, though, arguing that if the AFL cancelled its season, the impact would probably be "negligible." He thought that the relatively small crossover rate between the two leagues meant that most AFL guys weren't cut out for the CFL and vice versa. "It’s a different skill set, a different type of player," he said. "Even without that league there, I’m not sure you’re going to see a large migration of players up here."
I don't buy that argument, though. Yes, the game is a bit different, but there are certainly those who could play in either league. As Montreal Alouettes general manager Jim Popp told The Globe and Mail's David Naylor yesterday, there are probably three to five players on each team who would attract some CFL interest, representing 51 to 85 players total by my calculations. Popp is also actively involved the football operations side, while Mitchell primarily oversees the business end, so I trust Popp's evaluation more here. There's also some good talent in the league: check out this list of some notable arena football alumni who have made it to the NFL.
Furthermore, the historical lack of players transferring between the two leagues does not mean that situation would hold if one league collapsed. The salaries are quite similar for many players, so the AFL was a chance for Americans who couldn't crack the NFL to stay in the U.S. and still play football. If it goes under, there's much more incentive for them to come to the CFL (and less alternative options as well). Thus, you'd probably see more Americans willing to come north. As McCown said, "If that option is removed, now where do these guys go?" His conclusion was that a bunch of them would come to Canada, and that seems plausible from here.
The next subject of discussion was Arena League quarterbacks in particular, as the league's known for its quarterback play (the Arizona Cardinals' Kurt Warner got his start in the AFL). Mitchell admitted that quarterback is "one area that could be interesting," but then dumped a little cold water on it by suggesting that "it’s a very quick pass league and arm strength isn’t the prerequisite for the quarterback." Well, arm strength is great, but many NFL and CFL teams have proved that it isn't always necessary; just ask Bill Walsh, Jon Gruden and Chad Pennington. Reading the defence and making good decisions can be just as important.
Another interesting point that was brought up was the idea of suspension versus completely dissolving the league. Mitchell seemed to think that a one-year suspension wouldn't kill the league, but Brunt made an excellent point to the contrary along my own lines of thought. "It seems to me that if something goes away right now, the notion of trying to bring it back 12 months from now in what's probably going to be a worse economy is a non-starter," he said. Personally, I don't see how the AFL could expect to come back after sitting out a year; you'd lose all of your players and contracts, and not all of them would come running back if they found a better situation. You also lose your TV deals, your corporate sponsorship and a good deal of your fan base. It would likely be extremely difficult to revive the league after a year-long suspension.
Brunt also raised the issue of the AFL folding potentially strengthening the CFL's negotiating position vis-a-vis the NFL, as the NFL would still need to develop their players somewhere and investing in the CFL might make more sense than trying to start their own league again. As he said, "The NFL is loathe to put money into developing leagues in general." Mitchell downplayed this idea as well, though, saying, "The European league, that going out of business was probably more advantageous for us than the Arena League [going out of business]."
Next, they discussed how the absence of the Arena League would make CFL scouting more difficult. McCown said "The downside to this is that it makes it more difficult to find those guys who kind of fall off the radar," and there was pretty much consensus on that point. It makes sense from here, too, and means that the CFL would probably have to focus more of their efforts on nabbing potential players when they come out of college. From here, though, that's a pretty small drawback compared to the gains that could be in store in other areas.
Also interesting was their discussion of the idea of a new American league arising, such as the "New USFL". I'd heard rumours about this before, but hadn't really considered what the AFL's demise could mean. It certainly could pave the way for a new American league, though, as the AFL's existence (and that of the old USFL) has shown that there's an appetite for more pro football in the States, especially in the spring. That kind of a league might be problematic for the CFL, especially if they go with a relatively high salary cap and draw CFL players away. As Mitchell said, "If there was a league that came out and was operating at a 30 million dollar cap, that would be the one that’s going to affect us and concern us the most." I'm not sure that any of these leagues will ever get off the ground, though; it's awfully hard to try and launch a new professional sports entity during an economic recession.
The last point raised was a discussion of if the absence of the AFL would allow the CFL to reduce player salaries due to a lack of competition. As Brunt asked, "If you’re the only game in town other than the NFL, shouldn’t that allow you to operate at a less expensive level?" Mitchell replied that the current bargaining agreement locks the players' cut in at 65 per cent of revenues, so that wouldn't change for the moment. However, the lack of an alternative might help the owners' bargaining position in the next negotiations.
Overall, it was a very interesting segment. McCown and Brunt have obviously put some thought into this, and most of their conclusions seem logical. Mitchell seemed reticent to read too much into this, but a good part of that may be his position. It would be bad form for a top executive to gloat publicly about the demise of a competitor, especially when the competitor isn't quite dead yet [Duane Rollins, this blog]. Thus, the impact on the CFL might be more profound than he's willing to admit at this juncture.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
AFL survives. For now. Maybe.
There is still no schedule -- nor an indication of when one might be released -- but the 16 AFL owners voted tonight to soldier on.
They are talking about making "long-term structural improvement(s)" to keep the league up and running. No details, of course, have been released, but for now the CFL can hold off on going to town on that all you can eat import buffet.
As someone that grew up with an illegal satellite beaming American sports programming into my home I've seen more than my share of arena football games. And, I still don't get it. But, no one wants to see a league fail, nor face up to what that might mean.
If it had folded it wouldn't have been the first pro league this year to throw the keys on the table either.
They are talking about making "long-term structural improvement(s)" to keep the league up and running. No details, of course, have been released, but for now the CFL can hold off on going to town on that all you can eat import buffet.
As someone that grew up with an illegal satellite beaming American sports programming into my home I've seen more than my share of arena football games. And, I still don't get it. But, no one wants to see a league fail, nor face up to what that might mean.
If it had folded it wouldn't have been the first pro league this year to throw the keys on the table either.
What the AFL's demise could mean for the CFL
According to owner Casey Wasserman of the Los Angeles Avengers, the embattled Arena Football League is set to call off its 2009 season [Sam Farmer, The Los Angeles Times]. The league's official statement says a firm decision hasn't been reached yet, but it also doesn't deny outright that the league may suspend play for the 2009 season. We'll see what happens, but the future certainly doesn't look bright for the league.
This may signal the complete demise of the AFL; once you suspend operations for a season, it can be tough to bounce back, especially if the reasons are financial. Lockouts and strikes are somewhat easier to recover from, as the league itself was never really threatened; it's usually just a question of when things will get back to normal. With a somewhat-fringe league like the AFL, though, and financial issues being cited as the biggest factor, you have to wonder if they'll ever be able to return. A season away will likely alienate a lot of fans, and more importantly, quite a few players. Corporate sponsors also will become leery of associating themselves with a league that doesn't appear strong, and it becomes a vicious cycle; the league is perceived as weak economically, and thus receives less investment and attention, so it necessarily becomes weaker. Regardless of if this is a temporary coma or the final curtain for the AFL, there may be some interesting effects on the CFL.
David Naylor of The Globe and Mail had a good story yesterday about the talent that could be freed up for the CFL. His quotes from Montreal Alouettes general manager Jim Popp are quite interesting:
"There's a small pool of players who, if the Arena League didn't play, would be interesting to teams in the CFL," Montreal general manager Jim Popp said. "At best, three to five players per team that would attract some interest."
That's actually quite a potential influx of talent. 16 different teams are currently listed on the AFL website, and Naylor's article adds that a 17th folded this off-season. Using Popp's estimate, that would be between 51 and 85 players currently in the AFL who would be attractive to CFL teams. That translates into six to ten players per CFL franchise, which could change the makeup of their rosters significantly. Salary isn't much of an issue; Naylor reports that AFL pay is similar to the CFL.
Even that estimated talent influx perhaps doesn't show the whole picture. What could be bigger for the CFL is its position if the AFL folds. All of a sudden, it's now the prime developmental league for the NFL outside of college football, thanks to the demise of NFL Europa last year [Wikipedia]. The CFL would now be a primary option for players who can't crack NFL rosters, and that could lead to even more new talent.
The largest potential long-term impact goes beyond talent, though. The NFL needs at least one player-development league somewhere. With NFL Europa gone and the potential disbanding of the AFL, the CFL is now the main alternative. Moreover, it's already rather popular and thus wouldn't need dramatic cash infusions to keep operating. That might rekindle the NFL's interest in taking an equity position in the CFL, as it's now more in their own interest to ensure the survival of the Canadian game. It's tough to see the NFL doing that at this exact moment given their recent massive job cuts [Judy Battista, The New York Times], but it might be more plausible down the road.
Regardless of if the equity interest plays out or not, the NFL would have a more compelling rationale to keep the CFL around if there was no AFL in the picture. That might lead the league to be more cautious with the Bills/Toronto idea; not necessarily canceling the games (highly unlikely) or outright ditching the idea of a NFL team based in Canada (also unlikely), but ensuring that their moves would not kill the CFL. In any case, it will be interesting to watch in the months ahead.
Update: The league is not dead yet! As Duane writes, the owners voted to carry on Tuesday night. Still not the most optimistic of times, considering that at least one owner publicly said they were suspending operations for a year before this and also that that option wasn't ruled out. Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not sure that they're getting better.
This may signal the complete demise of the AFL; once you suspend operations for a season, it can be tough to bounce back, especially if the reasons are financial. Lockouts and strikes are somewhat easier to recover from, as the league itself was never really threatened; it's usually just a question of when things will get back to normal. With a somewhat-fringe league like the AFL, though, and financial issues being cited as the biggest factor, you have to wonder if they'll ever be able to return. A season away will likely alienate a lot of fans, and more importantly, quite a few players. Corporate sponsors also will become leery of associating themselves with a league that doesn't appear strong, and it becomes a vicious cycle; the league is perceived as weak economically, and thus receives less investment and attention, so it necessarily becomes weaker. Regardless of if this is a temporary coma or the final curtain for the AFL, there may be some interesting effects on the CFL.
David Naylor of The Globe and Mail had a good story yesterday about the talent that could be freed up for the CFL. His quotes from Montreal Alouettes general manager Jim Popp are quite interesting:
"There's a small pool of players who, if the Arena League didn't play, would be interesting to teams in the CFL," Montreal general manager Jim Popp said. "At best, three to five players per team that would attract some interest."
That's actually quite a potential influx of talent. 16 different teams are currently listed on the AFL website, and Naylor's article adds that a 17th folded this off-season. Using Popp's estimate, that would be between 51 and 85 players currently in the AFL who would be attractive to CFL teams. That translates into six to ten players per CFL franchise, which could change the makeup of their rosters significantly. Salary isn't much of an issue; Naylor reports that AFL pay is similar to the CFL.
Even that estimated talent influx perhaps doesn't show the whole picture. What could be bigger for the CFL is its position if the AFL folds. All of a sudden, it's now the prime developmental league for the NFL outside of college football, thanks to the demise of NFL Europa last year [Wikipedia]. The CFL would now be a primary option for players who can't crack NFL rosters, and that could lead to even more new talent.
The largest potential long-term impact goes beyond talent, though. The NFL needs at least one player-development league somewhere. With NFL Europa gone and the potential disbanding of the AFL, the CFL is now the main alternative. Moreover, it's already rather popular and thus wouldn't need dramatic cash infusions to keep operating. That might rekindle the NFL's interest in taking an equity position in the CFL, as it's now more in their own interest to ensure the survival of the Canadian game. It's tough to see the NFL doing that at this exact moment given their recent massive job cuts [Judy Battista, The New York Times], but it might be more plausible down the road.
Regardless of if the equity interest plays out or not, the NFL would have a more compelling rationale to keep the CFL around if there was no AFL in the picture. That might lead the league to be more cautious with the Bills/Toronto idea; not necessarily canceling the games (highly unlikely) or outright ditching the idea of a NFL team based in Canada (also unlikely), but ensuring that their moves would not kill the CFL. In any case, it will be interesting to watch in the months ahead.
Update: The league is not dead yet! As Duane writes, the owners voted to carry on Tuesday night. Still not the most optimistic of times, considering that at least one owner publicly said they were suspending operations for a year before this and also that that option wasn't ruled out. Despite claims to the contrary, I'm not sure that they're getting better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
